Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by thaunatos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

thaunatos

It does. https://www.war.gov/

View on HN

Departments are created by acts of Congress. Not because a wannabe dictator registered a domain name.

I don't see any impeachment proceedings from Congress. Looks like the wannabe dictator has their blessings.

What's the difference between a wannabe dictator and an actual dictator?

I don't think it's what's on a piece of paper somewhere. I think it's what they're able to do, and get away with.

Considering the sheer amount of wars the CIA and DoD are responsible for that are ongoing; the rebranding is more honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...

Bad news. Trump and Hegseth do not have the authority to rename the Department of Defense, no matter what they put on a Web site. That requires an act of Congress, which hasn't happened. And probably won't, because even if they could convince Congress to do it, that would require them to ask... and their whole modus operandi is based around pretending to have authority they don't have.

Calling it the Department of War is accepting that Trump's the King.

The ada.gov website has a banner that reads, "Democrats have shut down the government. Department of Justice websites are not currently regularly updated."

Trump is the king.

Edit: To be clear, I think it's complete and utter garbage. I'm assuming people think I think it's a good thing? It's not a good thing. At all.

No, Trump has a minor fiefdom district and some authority for services the states and their representatives agreed to let the federal government execute.

He is not king.

He is routinely violating laws, so quickly that there isn't enough room in the courts for all of them.

"King" is inaccurate, but correctly implies the degree to which the law does not apply to him.

My point was that he is acting like a king. And if he's allowed to act like a king, checks and balances don't mean anything.

Which makes him the king.

Turns out, letting government operate on a system of agreements that require appropriate behavior instead of clear consequences for this type of behavior is a bad idea.

If Congress tells the Executive: "Here's some money, spend it on USAID to stabilize regions in which the US Army operates and are of strategic importance". And the Executive says, "thanks for the money! I will spend it on whatever the hell I choose." And congress just belly flops over the next time they pass a budget, without checking that overreach of power, the Executive looks more and more like a king.

You voted for congress, but apparently congress doesn't matter anymore.

It's garbage and also illegal. He probably won't get what he deserves since nature will likely get to him first at this rate. Hut there will be a reckoning one day when this alls shifts.

I think that's the most likely scenario, but I'm open to two others:

- this escalates and we enter Civil War. How things play out from there is unimaginable since there's so many other attack vectors in a civil war with a super power.

- things shift and everyone accointable simply flees. Not the ideal outcome, but I'll take mass resignations at this point. The focus will need to be on rebuilding either way.

Something being illegal only has a meaning if somebody prosecutes it and has the power to stop it. With the DOJ head’s main qualification being loyal to the president there is nothing that will be done.

My other concern is that Congress will spend the next few decades prosecuting, investigating and impeaching each other without doing anything useful for the country. I thought impeaching Trump while knowing that it would never succeed was a big distraction and basically show business. I would like to see much more focus on actual problems of citizens. Trump being in prison won’t improve my life.

Trump being hanged would improve your life immensely. It sends a message to future criminals snd traitors.

The high level corruption is core reason why nothing can be done for actual problems of citizens. And the more corruption, the less will be done. Impeaching Trump would be first step toward word where lives of citizens can be improved.

What happened was the opposite and lives of citizens will be worst off.

It was known from the start that the impeachment wouldn't work. It was purely symbolic.

Instead of impeachment it would be much better to work on winning elections and then do what's good for the country. A good start would be to run decent candidates.

... and the most probable scenario - this is new normal, US slides mildly into fascist dictatorship ruled by elite who doesn't even try to hide its status and control, but maintains enough momentum of the past to keep it afloat at/around the top with China as a cca peer. Less actual military power but better overall economy shape. Its not like US is a champion of real democracy for decades, not if you compare it to places like Switzerland.

Lets not forget half of US population knew pretty well what they voted for and went on ahead full speed, in 'fuck it' or 'fuck'em' mentality.

Farmers.gov goes even further:

> Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown...

It is a fact the democrats shut down government because they wanted to hide irrelevant provisions in the funding bill. Enough shady business from democrats!

If by "irrelevant provisions" you mean... funding. For things that were already being funded. Yes, hiding continuing funding in the continuing funding bill. Very devious.

> Enough shady business from democrats!

Okay what is with this style of writing? I see it in Trump tweets, on Fox news, and in other conservative circles.

Are you guys made in a fucking lab or something?

Wherever we were grown, we have our head still sitting between our shoulders, buddy.

Democrats were trying to undo a prior GOP law and extend bigger Obamacare subsidies as well as extending the enhanced ACA premium tax credits ($350 billion over a decade), which would have funneled several hundred billion dollars in healthcare subsidies that could have been apportioned to illegal immigrants rather than Americans who need it. Read section 2141 rather than CNN articles.

It's widely known why Democrat politicians funnel money to them: votes.

And, this page exists: https://www.whitehouse.gov/mysafespace

Jesus fucking Christ.

I thought the executive had the power to rename existing departments and map landmarks. That's why we got "DOGE" disgused under the USDS and the "Gulf of America".

If that's not legal, I'll do my best to act shocked.

In this case, the executive had the power to add a secondary title, Department of War. It does not override the primary name of Dept of Defense but it appears to be the proper amount of appeasement.

They can add a secondary title. And they're drafting legislation to change the primary title.

Seems pretty simple.

Drafting legislation isn't the same thing as that legislation having passed. It's the Department of Defense until Congress says otherwise.

oh do you also call it the Gulf of America?

Did anyone ask the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci?

Gulf of Vespucci sounds great.

In my eyes, Gulf of America is really stupid and useless.

But calling it "Department of War" clearly states their intent, contrary to his campaign as the "no new wars" president. We renamed it 70 years ago for a reason, and such reason completely flew over the admins' heads.

The Department of Defense DID NOT used to be called the Department of War. Before there was no central department for the entire military. Instead, there was the Department of the Navy and the Department of War (which was for the Army).

Yes.

nope: https://www.military.com/feature/2025/10/17/department-of-wa...

Nobody uses statutory titles for anything to be honest; when’s the last time you referred to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instead of “Obamacare”? When’s the last time you referred to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program instead of “Social Security”? I’ve never heard anyone say Title XIX of the Social Security Act instead of “Medicaid,” or Title XVIII of the Social Security Act instead of “Medicare,” or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act instead of “Welfare.”

> when’s the last time you referred to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instead of “Obamacare”

I refer to it as "the ACA", which is short and avoids an unofficial moniker first introduced as an insult.

It's not just a personal preference, it's civically important: There are still morons out there who have spent the last 15 years simultaneously gushing about how the ACA is awesome while demonizing "Obamacare."

ACA is still technically incorrect; as it’s actually statutorily the PPACA. Accuracy, am I right?

You're kind of proving their point: People seem to use common names (ACA, Obamacare, DoD) regardless of whether they abide by statute (PPACA) or executive meme-forcing (DoW).

By that position we should have been using TUSoA this whole time. US is wrong. USA is wrong.America is wrong.

There's a difference between an informal name that catches on organically and isn't politically charged, and an highly visible, ostentatiously political renaming specifically intended to make a point.

You’re telling me “Obamacare” isn’t politically charged? It was originally a political slur.

1. It's not politically charged now.

2. It's not all over government Web sites. In fact I doubt it's on them at all.

3. Cabinet-level officials aren't giving stupid speeches about how important the name is in reflecting a Whole New Approach.

4. I don't remember Obama objecting to it at the time... nor did Obama go on TV and say "It will now be called OBAMACARE in honor of me, the greatest and only competent President ever".

5. Actually I don't remember it even being a "slur". The first draft was based on Romneycare. There was also "Hillarycare", which might have actually been pejorative. In any case it wasn't anything like on the level of the President or the Secretary of anything making a bunch of noise about it.

> It's not all over government Web sites. In fact I doubt it's on them at all.

I can’t find reference to “Obamacare” but there is one for TrumpRx: https://trumprx.gov/

> I don't remember Obama objecting to it at the time...

I remember that Democrats were accusing Republicans of violating the Hatch Act by using their official congressional mailers to say "Obamacare".

I say ACA, Obamacare is politically charged. And the cases you've mentioned all shorten a long name into a colloquial name. This is not the case for Department of War/Defense.

That said, let's call it what it is... it's a war machine. Just as we should refer to Israeli Occupation Forces and not "Defense" forces, since genocidal occupation is just about the furthest thing from defense.

I’ll always remember the turn around phrase that was a Yankee Doodle dandy moment “Obamacare because Obama cares”

It’s not a war machine, it’s a pork processing system for Congress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com